Quote of the Week:We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -John F. Kennedy, 35th US president (1917-1963)

The 2011 Economic Report of the President (ERP) was briefly discussed in last week’s TWTW including the questionable concept of the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) which, with vague definitions, is an ideal tool for bureaucrats to justify regulation of carbon based fuels and other carbon based products. The example in the ERP calculating the benefits of energy independence, without increasing domestic production of oil and gas, was discussed.

In praising benefits of reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the ERP systematically omits any of the benefits of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which are significant.

The ERP promotes the development of solar and wind, but has significant omissions:

The ERP omits any plan for sensible development of the huge oil resources in the United States and its off-shore boundaries.

It omits stating imported oil is principally used as a transportation fuel – less than one percent is used to generate electricity. Generating electricity from solar or wind does not significantly reduce the need for transportation fuels.

It omits any plan for promoting the construction of modern nuclear power plants to include the recycling of nuclear fuel.

It omits any discussion of the poor 120-year economic history of wind-generated electricity – erratic wind power was always rejected by consumers demanding reliable, affordable electricity.

It omits the staggering investments China is making in traditional sources for generating electricity. The EPR emphasizes China’s development of solar and wind but ignores massive investments in nuclear, coal, and hydro. This omission leads to the false assertion that the US is in a race with China for wind and solar power.

It omits any rigorous economic discussion of the difference between government expenditures and government investment. Expenditures are exactly that, they may create jobs and prosperity for a few, but not for the general public. Successful investments create general prosperity yielding far more to the general public than the cost. Replacing coal plants which reliably generate affordable electricity with wind farms or solar plants that unreliably generate more expensive electricity is an expenditure, not an investment. Such an action is no more an investment than replacing the reliable family car with an exotic, expensive, high-maintenance sports car. It may create jobs for some but at the expense of the family.

It omits any discussion of an existing technology that can economically store electricity on an industrial scale. Without one, spending heavily on solar or wind is speculation.

In short, the EPR does not provide a path to a prosperous energy future, but a path to a boxed canyon that will make the US uncompetitive in the world markets.

S. Fred Singer publicly stated: “Congress should give the 2011 Economic Report of the President an ‘F’ and send it back.”

(Please see Article # 2, and articles under the article under Carbon Dioxide Benefits.*************************************This week the Energy and Power Subcommittee of the US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce held a hearing entitled “Climate Science and EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Regulations.” The hearing was in preparation for a vote on legislation to remove from EPA the power to regulate Greenhouse Gases, particularly carbon dioxide.

Thus far the new Congress allows for greater diversity in witnesses than the past Congress. Prior to this Congress such a hearing would commonly have, say sixteen, experts testifying. Fifteen would claim the science establishes the need for such regulations and one would was not. This hearing had six witnesses represented the conflicting views of what the science establishes. The testimony of the witnesses is referenced below.

Roger Pielke, Sr, who testified, posted on his web blog his views of the hearing and possible opportunities missed. Judith Curry contrasted the testimony on extreme-weather events by Francis Zwiers of the University of Victoria, with that of John Christy of University of Alabama in Huntsville. Of course, the partisans in the press had their own take on the testimony.

The legislation passed the subcommittee. (Please see referenced items under “Let the Games Begin,” “Seeking a Common Ground,” and “Extreme Weather.”*************************************Michael Mann has been in the press again. Some posts suggest Mann deceived Penn State University or that the University whitewashed its investigation. Others suggest all was merely a slight-of-hand by Mann. The post by Steve McIntire may give the best summation of the situation. (Please see articles referenced under Climategate Continued.)

Also, the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled on the appeal by Virginia Attorney General Cuccinelli regarding the local court severely limiting the scope of his investigation of Mann’s emails while at the University of Virginia. In general, the Court found for Cuccinelli. However, it also raised the question whether or not the University, as an agency of the state, was subject to the type of demand Cuccinelli issued. As of this time SEPP has seen no articles defining the actual legal meaning of the finding and the options open to Cuccinelli.

This leads to the Quote of the Week from John F. Kennedy: If the University of Virginia has nothing to hide, why is it bitterly fighting public disclosure of the facts?

*************************************With the crash of the Glory satellite into the ocean, NASA is suffering terrible blows in studying the earth’s climate. This is the second failure resulting in the destruction of an important, expensive satellite, raising questions about the NASA missions and the launchers it is using.

Satellite observations of the earth’s weather and climate provide unparalleled information on the ever-changing planet. The global temperature calculations from satellites are the finest available. Unfortunately, NASA allowed its contributions to climate science to be dominated by NASA-GISS, which used surface-based instruments and highly questionable computer models, to promoted the fear of global warming – a fear, that, increasingly, the public no longer accepts

Recently-elected Congressmen, rightly, question the work of NASA-GISS and its surface based data. NASA made a huge public relations error with this Congress by allowing the leaders of NASA-GISS to be the symbol for NASA’s earth / climate program. As a result, understandably, many Congressmen are questioning the entire program. (Please see articles under “Other Scientific Issues.”)*************************************Number of the Week: 160,000 premature deaths prevented in 2010. Last week’s TWTW had as the Number of the Week the EPA’s claim that the AMENDMENTS to the Clear Air Act resulted in benefits of $1.2 Trillion in 2010 alone. Several readers responded citing that in the same documents the EPA claims that in 2010 these Amendments prevented 160,000 premature deaths as well as many other questionable benefits. The readers stated that they could not justify such numbers. Neither can SEPP.

EPA is not clear on its accounting procedures, so one can only speculate about how it arrives at its numbers. However, after the initial Clean Air Act in 1970, that many of the dominant air pollutants prior to 1970 were removed by 1990. Thus, the remaining ones would largely be pollutants which contribute to respiratory diseases.

Heavy metals such as lead, which can create nervous disorders, may be a contributor to premature deaths. However, the EPA report focused on oxides of nitrogen, sulfur, small particles, etc., that are generally associated with respiratory disease. Cigarette smokers were not considered.

There are two major categories of deaths from respiratory diseases reported in the statistical abstracts of the US: 1) “Malignant neoplasms of trachea, bronchus, and lung,” and 2) “Chronic lower respiratory diseases.” In 1990, the total reported deaths from the category one were 146,400 with a death rate of 58.9 per 100,000 and total reported deaths from category two were 86,700 with a death rate of 34.9/100,000. In 2007, the last year with published statistics, the total deaths from the first category was 158,760 with a death rate of 52.6/100,000 and total deaths from the second category were 127,924 with a rate of 42.4/100,000.

The results are conflicting. Total deaths in both categories rose with population increases. The death rate in the category one declined after the Clean Air Act amendments. However, the death rate in the category two increased after the Clean Air Act amendments. There is no explanation for this increase.

None of the above considers the reduction in cigarette smoking rates. Casting further doubt on the validity of EPA claims, according to the Center for Disease Control, from 2000 to 2004, an average of 128,900 people died each year from lung cancer and 92,900 from other respiratory diseases caused by cigarette smoking. If consistent with 2007 deaths, cigarette smoking would account for about 81 percent of the category one deaths and about 73 percent of the category two deaths. (Of course, these are approximations.)

Until EPA fully substantiates its calculations, its claim of 160,000 persons saved from premature death by Clean Air Act amendments in 2010 cannot be accepted as valid.

The Seas are ChangingIce sheets melting faster than earlier estimatesBy Brian Vastag, Washington Post, Mar 10, 2011 [H/t David Manuta]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article…[SEPP Comment: No mention that the projected of 5.9 inch increase in sea levels by 2050 is well within the range of the IPCC’s maximum prediction of 23 inches by 2100 or well below the projection by Jim Hansen of NOAA-GISS of 236 inches by 2100.]

Winter for US Was 39th Coldest in 117 Years – Decadal Cooling of 4.1FBy Joseph D’Aleo, ICECAP, Mar 8, 2011http://www.icecap.us/…

Natural Variability Main Culprit of Deadly Russian Heat Wave That Killed ThousandsBy Staff Writers, NOAA, Mar 9, 2011 [H/t WUWT]http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110309_ru…[SEPP Comment: Contrary to most reports, warming is not happening everywhere and the deaths last year in Russia were not caused by “global warming.”.]

Western China the ‘Middle East’ for coalBy Staff Writers, UPI, Mar 8, 2011 [H/t Toshio Fujita]http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/Western_China_th…[SEPP Comment: As the US administration is abandoning coal-fired power plants, is China winning the race for coal-fired power plants?]

Light WarsLet There Be More Efficient LightBy Roger Pielke, Jr, NYT, Mar 10, 2011http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/opinion/11pielke.h…[SEPP Comment: America’s founders recognized the importance of standards in weights and measurements to promote commerce. The Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate such standards. That power is far different than Congress mandating a particular product, which it did in the light-bulb legislation.]

Earth’s Thermal Sensitivity to a Doubling of Atmospheric CO2Reference: Lindzen, R.S. and Choi, Y.-S. 2009. On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data. Geophysical Research Letters 36: 10.1029/2009GL039628.http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/mar/8mar201…

The Top-of-the-Atmosphere Radiation Budget: Model Simulations vs. Direct Measurements over the tropicsReference: Andronova, N., Penner, J.E. and Wong, T. 2009. Observed and modeled evolution of the tropical mean radiation budget at the top of the atmosphere since 1985. Journal of Geophysical Research 114: 10.1029/2008JD011560.http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/mar/9mar201…

A Warmer Climate May Not Mean El Niño Comes to StayBy Sid Perkins, Science Now, Mar 9, 2011 [H/t Toshio Fujita]http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/03/a-warm…[SEPP Comment: The IPCC dismissed El Niños as a cause of warming – too short lived. But the work of McLean, Carter and de Freitas suggests that changes in the El Niño-Southern Oscillation may explain a great part of late 20th Century warming. There is no scientific reason to suggest warming causes El Niños.

Regarding the 2011 Economic Report of the President, SEPP could have pointed out that Germany’s grid operator E.ON Netz estimates that by 2020 they will have to backup 96% of their wind power generation with reliable sources of generation from coal. Why build one power plant, when you can build two for twice the price?

By my calculations , if 20% of the USA’s electric generation was replaced by wind power, our oil imports would be reduced by 0.292% and CO2 emissions would be reduced by 0.0094%. Not much of a savings is it?

By my calculations, wind power has an Energy Returned On Energy Invested ratio of 0.29. Wind power will consume more than three times the energy to design, fabricate, erect, operate, maintain, and decommission than the energy it will ever produce.

“Until EPA fully substantiates its calculations, its claim of 160,000 persons saved from premature death by Clean Air Act amendments in 2010 cannot be accepted as valid.”
_______
An interesting question came to mind while reading the above: exactly what, if any, of the many claims the EPA has made can we “accept as valid”?

“The death rate in the category one declined after the Clean Air Act amendments. However, the death rate in the category two increased after the Clean Air Act amendments. There is no explanation for this increase”

Changing methods of diagnosis and clasification of illnesses can cause strange artefacts in data. According to historical records, nobody died of cancer 2000 years ago and we have completely eradicated Coryza in the past 200 years (because now we call it the cold).